Suggestion impemented (inSim) Changes to [MED] - Add to the RP/Server experience
|
2012-09-05, 02:59
(This post was last modified: 2012-09-05 03:00 by Elmo.)
Post: #41
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
RE: (inSim) Changes to [MED] - Add to the RP/Server experience
I'm tempted to merge this thread with the other one, because the discussion subject is basically identical and IIRC there are a few things that were said/discussed in the other that are being repeated here.
Med rights. It has already been said that if the Med(+Res?) role is to become official, it will require InSim support and will be tied to Cop rights. Answering a few questions above about that: 1. The skills required to be a competent medic are largely similar to those required to be a competent cop. Also, the things that would be likely to make a bad medic would be similar to those that would make a bad cop. Both roles require a good driving standard and the ability to follow the correct procedure/rules. 2. As far as I'm concerned, losing your cop rights is generally not a good incentive to not lose Med rights. As it is at the moment, many(most?) 'problem' Meds are only being Meds because they already lost their cop rights, usually for poor driving or breaking the basic Cop rules. Surely the prospect of also losing Med rights would be more incentive to not lose your Cop rights in the first place? (2012-09-04 15:18)Kiz Wrote: But either way, surely TC should be more entered around the community, not around the fact that the creator doesn't want something. I understand he may not want it in game, but if that's the case, TC should at-least make it clear that the valid reason for not having an inSim MED system is because Chuck (I assume) doesn't want it in the game instead of dressing it up with all of this abuse non-sense. If I'd known that the reasoning behind this was purely to do with the administrators not wanting it full-stop, I wouldn't have written the thread.The valid reasons that are in discussion here, in the other thread, and in the private TC area(s) are thus:
We (meaning TC and the community collectively) haven't even come to a conclusion on the 'makes sense' part. (2012-09-04 16:25)Mr. NB Wrote: Yeah, it would be nice if more suggestions would be considered by the TC, but unfortunately, it does not work like that here. It is not that people in TC would be ignorant, it is just that there is a certain logic and idea of what TC should be going on there and there is no way for people to change that easily. It obviously is a successful idea, since TC has been most popular server for years, so hands down on that, but i do agree however, that there is a lot of very useful and detailed suggestions out there. There was even more of them on the old forums, but you could count all of them that were acctualy implented, on the fingers of one hand. We do consider the vast majority of (if not all) suggestions made. Just because we don't actively implement all of them doesn't mean they haven't been seriously considered and thought about by Chuck and/or at least one Leader. If that wasn't the case, then we wouldn't have bothered creating (and re-creating) this area in the first place. (2012-09-04 16:42)Bez Wrote: People are too scared of change that's all.. It wouldn't hurt anyone to do trial runs of some ideas to see how they work out for 2 weeks, then if they don't work just remove it from the insim/server.Doing trial runs is all very well in theory, but in practice it's a balancing act between time to implement vs risk (chance of success) vs reward (how big an improvement). There are often things that seem very simple initially, but end up a bit of a bugger once we think about how to actually do it. There are things like this Med discussion, which practically everyone likes on the whole, but is a bit of a bugger at every stage from working it out in the first place to implementing it in the end. Not to mention the suggestions that are basically impossible/completely impractical. There are other things that are often very easy to determine if they're going to work or not (eg layouts etc) without even needing to go near the main servers. There are also one or two things that we've put on trial due to vocal demand, that unsurprisingly turned out to be a complete failure (eg Fully open, one way Autobahn - lasted only a few hours afaik). Essay over, time for sleep |
|||||||
|
|||||||
2012-09-05, 04:36
Post: #42
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
RE: (inSim) Changes to [MED] - Add to the RP/Server experience
That all started off because of chases on the Autobahn, then when someone submitted a layout that would help it got ignored and i'm pretty sure that would of stopped chases on the Autobahn. But it didn't get a chance to try and someone decided to close half the Autobahn off..
I don't remember anyone asking for a fully open Autobahn... If i remember correctly we asked for it to be reopened when the track got changed drastically without any consent from the community at all. We join the server and half the Autobahn was cut off without warning.. Then someone got the idea in their head that we wanted a fully 4 lane Autobahn one way.. When non of us even hinted at the idea... |
|||||||
|
|||||||
2012-09-05, 05:36
(This post was last modified: 2012-09-05 05:38 by KaraK.)
Post: #43
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
RE: (inSim) Changes to [MED] - Add to the RP/Server experience
You're wrong there Bez, people dropped the idea in a discussion about the autobahn.
There were better ideas, but at least TC tried it. Closing off the part near T-J sucks imo, it forces me to go all around while I want to go the other way. |
|||||||
|
|||||||
2012-09-05, 05:56
Post: #44
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
RE: (inSim) Changes to [MED] - Add to the RP/Server experience
Oh Never saw it eheh
Yeh i enjoy just driving around the Autobahn i don't know why |
|||||||
|
|||||||
2012-09-05, 15:50
Post: #45
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
RE: (inSim) Changes to [MED] - Add to the RP/Server experience
(2012-09-05 02:59)Elmo Wrote: We (meaning TC and the community collectively) haven't even come to a conclusion on the 'makes sense' part. I'd say that the MED roles on the server don't make sense and are largely scrambled in opinion. The features people are requesting for med (caution, siren, hazard) are essentially the HwA's job minus pulling people for speeding and hoping they stop. |
|||||||
|
|||||||
2012-09-10, 06:31
Post: #46
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
RE: (inSim) Changes to [MED] - Add to the RP/Server experience
I will come with an idea here, and thats for TOWs, MEDs and RES's.
It should be training for those, like you have to do before you can be any one those. Ive seen lots of TOWs that don't do their job properly and just ram the one who are flipped and sometimes it only makes it worse. If this is something that will be created, I'm happy to help with training! |
|||||||
|
|||||||
2012-09-12, 16:11
Post: #47
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
RE: (inSim) Changes to [MED] - Add to the RP/Server experience
(2012-09-10 06:31)Ziroh Wrote: I will come with an idea here, and thats for TOWs, MEDs and RES's. i like this idea. i'm doing this tow job for months now, and i see people trying to help with pure ramming daily... i've also given tow training to a few people who asked for it, and i'd support it when getting official. but first of all i'd put all those tow, med or res together and give it ONE name. i don't support the idea of giving this emergency unit similar rights as cop rights... like using siren or immunity against cops. don't forget what a tow or a med is built for... it's just to help people who can't move their cars on their own after an accident. why would you need to fullspeed to your target as a tow? i never had any problems with the system as it is now. don't be mad, but i think there are enough idiots with a siren on the server. to sum it up... i like the idea with tow training. there should be only one unit, not 2 or 3 different... that's confusing a bit, and an improved inormation bar for tows and also for people who called it. |
|||||||
2012-09-13, 06:49
Post: #48
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
RE: (inSim) Changes to [MED] - Add to the RP/Server experience
Just a few quick words as I saw my name has been mentioned a couple of times here.
I'm not ignoring this at all, but the thing is basically like Elmo said. There are questions to be answered but those questions turned out to be very complicated though they sounded very simple in the beginning. We have/had long internal discussions on this and related topics like semi-cop roles or jobs. Like traffic or parking enforcement. But even those matters turned out to be quite difficult and sometimes its simply impossible to find a compromise. As far I'm concerned, I'm currently busy with personal things as I just moved in a new flat and there are a million things to be done. |
|||||||
|
|||||||
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2025 MyBB Group